Disposed

Annis Mathew Poovathinkal v. the Tahsildar (Land Records)

Kerala HC27 Oct 2020WP(C)/15600/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed revenue authorities to permit inspection of records by the petitioner for copying Basic Land Tax Register and receipts, and to disclose the location of group sketches not available at the current office, without prejudice to penalty proceedings. Quality: thin.

What did the court decide?

Permitted inspection for copies; directed to inform where group sketches are available for application.

Annis Mathew Poovathinkal Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.15600 OF 2020(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ANNIS MATHEW POOVATHINKAL, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O K.P.JOHN, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, MOOSPET ROAD, CHELAKOTTUKARA, THRISSUR-680 005.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.J.G.SYAMNATH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), MANNARKKAD TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678 582.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLAMALA VILLAGE, AGALI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD-678 582.

¶12

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.15600 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is a senior citizen. She has approached this Court being aggrieved by the reluctance on the part of the revenue authorities in furnishing revenue records despite specific orders having been passed under the Right to Information Act.

¶18

The petitioner states that with a view to institute a suit to establish her right over property having an extent of 2.8733 hectares in Kallamala Village, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and submitted a request for issuance of certified copies of the receipt evidencing the payment of tax and copies of the Basic Land Tax Register (“BTR” for short) for certain years pertaining to the period from 1976-1977 to 2003 -2004. She also requested for issuance of group sketches of five subdivisions of Survey No.219 of Agali Village now forming part of Kallamala Village. The 2nd respondent on receipt of the application issued Exhibit P5 reply informing the petitioner that the entire resources of the Village Office may be required for days together to search out the documents and that the same would affect the very functioning of the public office. The petitioner was informed that she can be permitted to inspect the files, documents and records and all

¶19

WP(C).No.15600 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

assistance can be provided to take notes, copies or extracts of documents and records on any working day on her remitting the requisite fees. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under the Right to Information Act before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority confirmed Exhibit P5 and refused to interfere.

¶22

The petitioner carried the said order in appeal before the Kerala State Information Commission. The Chief Information Commissioner accepted the stand of the 2nd respondent insofar as the tax receipts are concerned pertaining to the years 1976-1977 onwards. However, insofar as the sketches are concerned, the respondents were directed to furnish to the petitioner the details of the office where the sketches would be available and also to forward the request submitted by the petitioner to the said office to enable her to get copies of the same. Insofar as the certified copies of BTR is concerned, the respondents were directed to furnish copies to the petitioner.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner that despite specific directions issued by the Chief Information Commissioner, the information sought for by the petitioner has not so far been furnished. It is in the afore circumstances that she has approached this Court seeking direction to the 2nd respondent to issue the documents sought for in Ext.P3 and P4 applications within a time frame.

¶24

WP(C).No.15600 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

Sri.Syamnath J.G, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a senior citizen and she is being driven from pillar to post by the respondents without furnishing the copies of the revenue records sought for by her. He referred to Sec. 4 of the Act and it was contended that the provisions imposes an obligation on public authorities to maintain its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and form which facilitates the Right to Information under the Act.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand

¶29

submitted that Section 20 of the Act enables the Information Commission to impose penalty on the Public Information Officer if the Officer without any reasonable cause failed to furnish the information sought for within the specified time or mala fidely denied the request for information. In that view of the matter, this Writ petition is not liable to be entertained, submits the learned Government Pleader. He would contend that due to the pandemic, the offices are working at half capacity and as the documents sought for are of 40 years vintage, it would be next to impossible for the respondents to retrieve the same and hand it over with the available resources. It is submitted that the respondents by issuing Exhibit P5 had informed the petitioner that all assistance can be offered to enable her or her authorised representative

¶30

WP(C).No.15600 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

to inspect the record and take copies.

¶33

7. Faced with the submission, Sri. Syamnath, the learned counsel submitted that he shall independently approach the Chief Information Commissioner with a petition under Section 20. However, in order to avoid further delay in the matter, his prayer is to permit the authorised representative of the petitioner to inspect the records in the office of the respondents by remitting the requisite fees and sought for

¶34

issuance of directions to the respondents to provide all assistance.

¶35

I have considered the submissions. In view of the

¶36

submission of Sri. Syamnath, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move under Section 20 of the Act, the following order is issued.

¶37

The respondents shall permit the authorised representative of the petitioner to inspect the records in the office of the respondents and to obtain copies of the BTR and Land tax receipts sought for by her as detailed in Exhibit P3 and P4 on her remitting the requisite fees.

¶38

Insofar as the group sketches are concerned, as it is admitted that the said documents are not available in the Agali and Kallamala Office, the 1st respondent shall

¶39

WP(C).No.15600 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

inform the petitioner the details of the office where the records are available. A copy of the application shall be

¶42

forwarded to the said office to enable the petitioner to secure the copies of the documents on her filing an application by remitting the requisite fees.

¶43

The above directions are issued without prejudice to

¶44

the right of the petitioner to move under Section 20 of

¶45

the Right to Information Act, 2005

¶46

This petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶47

SD/-

¶48

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

sru

¶51

WP(C).No.15600 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGALI LAND TRIBUNAL DATED 31.10.1975
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 38960/2018 DATED 30.11.2018
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.6.2019
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.7.2019
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.7.2019
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.2019
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 2.12.2019
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND APPEAL MEMORANDUM OF THE PETITIONER PREFERRED BEFORE THE KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION DATED 18.11.2019
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER DATED 31.12.2019

¶56

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

NIL

¶58

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

Annis Mathew Poovathinkal v. the Tahsildar (Land Records)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annis Mathew Poovathinkal v. the Tahsildar (Land Records)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Padichaparambil Chacko, Vs the District Collector

P.Thomas Vs the District Collector

Janaki Vs Special Tahsildar (L.R)

Mini S., Vs Ajith Mathew

K.M.Varghese Vs the Excise Commissioner

Noushad Vs Shereef